We must distinguish between offense given and offense taken. Indeed, good men, if not associated loved ones, were unfortunately and unnecessarily offended, but whose intention was it to act in a way that would necessarily stir up such strife about named individuals? Certainly not Bryan Chapell’s! Indeed, Bryan is 100% responsible for his thoughts that resulted in waving a list of names in front of a camera, but it would be a reckless over-simplification to hold him equally culpable for the providence that involved the calculating wills of others.

This brief piece pertains to events surrounding the Stated Clerk of the PCA, Bryan Chapell. My single hope is to bring some clarity in the spirit of peacemaking but not provide a solution that’s beyond my pay grade.

Bryan Chapell’s wrongdoing was not that he exposed people he thought ill of but rather that he thought ill of at least some people unjustifiably. The circulation of names of individuals was not done by Bryan but by others. That seems relevant, but those individuals aren’t on the hot seat. Only Bryan is. But let’s be clear. That untrue things were circulated about named people was not done by one man, let alone with an intention to spread a bad report about specific individuals. The only intentional effort to spread a bad report was done in an effort to expose Bryan by freezing and zooming in on a list he never intended or wanted to be seen. Yes, people were rightly offended but it’s more than a bit confused to suggest that Bryan offended in the way in which it is being implied at least by some.

As to why Bryan misled himself about unnamed people and then intentionally voiced shockingly untrue things is another matter. More on that in a moment.

As for Bryan’s resignation, the warm gospel reconciliation that I believe is occurring is refreshing, not surprising and, of course, not necessarily sufficient for restoration. Behavior has consequences and restoration to a position can be complex. My primary concern is whether what has occurred with respect to Bryan’s behavior has clearly been identified by (a) those who want a pound of flesh, (b) those who believe an apology is always sufficient for restoration, and (c) everyone in between. Again, Bryan did not spread a false report about individuals. Rather, Bryan thought severely incorrectly and, I believe, sounded a false alarm. Given the good character of the men on the list, I must believe that they are more quick to try to understand why Bryan thought (if not harbored) certain things about them and felt the need to sound an alarm about the state of the PCA as he did. Perhaps tender conversations are occurring whereby impressions Bryan had are being understood, addressed and allayed. Perhaps some are even learning from Bryan! No matter what, we can be sure God will use these interactions to the good of his own and to his glory. I believe he already has!

Wrapping up:

On day one I believed that Bryan was being impugned with an offense he had not actually given. Notwithstanding, knowing two brothers on the list, I also reached out to them expressing how ludicrous it was that they were listed. (I don’t believe that entails contradiction.)

We must distinguish between offense given and offense taken. Indeed, good men, if not associated loved ones, were unfortunately and unnecessarily offended, but whose intention was it to act in a way that would necessarily stir up such strife about named individuals? Certainly not Bryan Chapell’s! Indeed, Bryan is 100% responsible for his thoughts that resulted in waving a list of names in front of a camera, but it would be a reckless over-simplification to hold him equally culpable for the providence that involved the calculating wills of others. After all, had the former occurred without the latter, then what? I could be mistaken but I find that to be a relevant reflection.

Read More